Fear Mongers: Sam Harris, Bill Maher etc

I thought this was a casual and useful reference. It was not the Nazi’s themselves, it was the majority of people just doing their job that caused the most problems. I could not agree more with things you are saying, though.

Although he was not a Nazi, he still raped a 12 year old girl. A criminal act is criminal, yet somehow other acts just seem worse than others. What she did was her job, I completely agree with everybody saying that. I just don’t agree with the line some people draw between doing horrible things and a job. This is on that line and indeed says something about her as a person.

I was drawing a direct line to her character and the person it would take to do it, much like the doctor that over prescribed Cancer medications to his patients.

I have been telling myself that I need to set aside time to watch “Making a Murderer”.

While writing out the ” for murderer, I found myself wanting to ask you a question.

Because the law allows for it, does this give people the right to be a non-moral entity?

You pointed out a huge failing in our justice system. A person with a bad defense can be made into something else and vice-versa. This is a huge hole that needs to be patched up, that allows for much harm, but is it just the best we got right now?

“Because the law allows for it, does this give people the right to be a non-moral entity?”

I am not sure that the law allows for people to be non-moral. I think lawyers are expected to follow a certain ethical line. They have a moral obligation to serve their client, but they are not servants of the client, they are never automatons, they will often have to face a moral dilemma. And they have a moral obligation to work in the best interests of law itself.

To that extent, I completely get the distaste for Hillary’s choice to present certain arguments but likewise I don’t see how a justice system would work if lawyers refused to follow borderline legitimate avenues of inquiry in case it looked distasteful. I dont mean to trivialise anything by those choice of words.

Do people have the right to be non-moral, though? Um…..hey, I guess they do.

I asked a couple of scientists about the ethics of developing something that could go on to be an instrument of misery or could create huge moral dilemmas for the population, and they had no problem in seeing themselves as set apart from those scenarios. Their role is to advance human knowledge/capability, they said, and its society’s role to codify the ethics surrounding any advancement. So I guess they are non-moral in their role.

“Because the law allows for it, does this give people the right to be a non-moral entity?”

I am not sure that the law allows for people to be non-moral. I think lawyers are expected to follow a certain ethical line. They have a moral obligation to serve their client, but they are not servants of the client, they are never automatons, they will often have to face a moral dilemma. And they have a moral obligation to work in the best interests of law itself.

To that extent, I completely get the distaste for Hillary’s choice to present certain arguments but likewise I don’t see how a justice system would work if lawyers refused to follow borderline legitimate avenues of inquiry in case it looked distasteful. I dont mean to trivialise anything by those choice of words.

Do people have the right to be non-moral, though? Um…..hey, I guess they do.

I asked a couple of scientists about the ethics of developing something that could go on to be an instrument of misery or could create huge moral dilemmas for the population, and they had no problem in seeing themselves as set apart from those scenarios. Their role is to advance human knowledge/capability, they said, and its society’s role to codify the ethics surrounding any advancement. So I guess they are non-moral in their role.

A good example of this would be the Oppenheimer. That seems a bit in the other direction though.

If Oppenheimer was told that he was creating a bomb so the US could test it on a city, knowing it was going to kill thousands of people for little to no reason, then he would be a moral monster. He just created it and others used it, not really the same as the person making the decision to drop the bomb. I agree in this situation, that science itself has no morals and it’s the people who apply it.

I just think this is a bit different that knowing somebody is a rapist and defending him. Wheres the justice here?

To me at least, when we get proper mind reading equipment, people will look back and try to figure out what the hell we were thinking. Excuse the moral monsters by using the good ole, “Well, that’s just the way it is”. If somebody admits to their lawyer that they committed a crime, it should not then be the lawyer’s job to get others to disbelieve this. This truly is the exact opposite of what our justice system was created for, innocent till proven guilty. No job, ever, should give you this ability.

“Because the law allows for it, does this give people the right to be a non-moral entity?”

I am not sure that the law allows for people to be non-moral. I think lawyers are expected to follow a certain ethical line. They have a moral obligation to serve their client, but they are not servants of the client, they are never automatons, they will often have to face a moral dilemma. And they have a moral obligation to work in the best interests of law itself.

To that extent, I completely get the distaste for Hillary’s choice to present certain arguments but likewise I don’t see how a justice system would work if lawyers refused to follow borderline legitimate avenues of inquiry in case it looked distasteful. I dont mean to trivialise anything by those choice of words.

Do people have the right to be non-moral, though? Um…..hey, I guess they do.

I asked a couple of scientists about the ethics of developing something that could go on to be an instrument of misery or could create huge moral dilemmas for the population, and they had no problem in seeing themselves as set apart from those scenarios. Their role is to advance human knowledge/capability, they said, and its society’s role to codify the ethics surrounding any advancement. So I guess they are non-moral in their role.

A good example of this would be the Oppenheimer. That seems a bit in the other direction though.

If Oppenheimer was told that he was creating a bomb so the US could test it on a city, knowing it was going to kill thousands of people for little to no reason, then he would be a moral monster. He just created it and others used it, not really the same as the person making the decision to drop the bomb. I agree in this situation, that science itself has no morals and it’s the people who apply it.

I just think this is a bit different that knowing somebody is a rapist and defending him. Wheres the justice here?

To me at least, when we get proper mind reading equipment, people will look back and try to figure out what the hell we were thinking. Excuse the moral monsters by using the good ole, “Well, that’s just the way it is”. If somebody admits to their lawyer that they committed a crime, it should not then be the lawyer’s job to get others to disbelieve this. This truly is the exact opposite of what our justice system was created for, innocent till proven guilty. No job, ever, should give you this ability.

I just think this is a bit different that knowing somebody is a rapist and defending him. Wheres the justice here?

Yes, it’s a bit different. I agree with you on that.

The justice is in/to the justice system. “Innocent until proven guilty” (in a fair trial) is the best justice system I’ve ever heard of. Is there anything better? Mind reading might be better, I grant you that.

“Innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t mean that you or I or a law enforcer or a lawyer has to believe the accused is innocent; it is a legal instruction that means the law has to treat the accused in certain ways, mainly it has to presume innocence until it can provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is guilt. To be beyond a reasonable doubt, there has to have been a reasonable test of the evidence, which is where the defence lawyer comes in. I would argue that this is a morally sound system.

Within that system, of course there is room for anyone to fail, morally or otherwise, but a defence lawyer who insists on evidence being provided is not failing.

There have been many cases of false convictions, some of them even based on false confessions, and there is absolutely no justice in a false conviction.